abandoned; but they were prevented by the pride of class, from making or even supporting such a proposition.

The Egyptian priests were placed in open hostility to the new elements developed in the social system by extended foreign intercourse and maritime commerce, as all persons whose rank or power depends on ancient institutions are likely to be, to any new element developed in society. A contest was inevitable, in which the power of the hierarchy would have been greatly modified, if not abrogated, had not this result been more speedily effected by other circumstances, of a different nature.

When Necho, the son and successor of Psammetichus, defeated the Syrians, captured Jerusalem,* and overran the country as far as the Euphrates, he came in contact with a new conquering empire; the Chaldean-Babylonian of course had to commence a new war, with a more formidable enemy than any he had yet encountered. The battle of Carchemish, or Circesium, decided that the Babylonians should have the empire of Western Asia. The prophet Jeremiah has left us a description of this terrible encounter, uniting the force of poetry with the truth of history:

"The word of the Lord which came to the prophet Jeremiah against the Gentiles, against Egypt, against the army of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, which was by the

* 2 Kings xxiii. 33, and Herodotus ii. 159. The comparison of the two narratives exhibits an amusing example of the ignorance with which objections are frequently made against the historical veracity of Scripture. The Greek historian calls the city captured by Pharaoh Necho Cadytis, and as this name is not at all like Jerusalem, it has been supposed by some that the narratives are inconsistent. But the Jews frequently call their city Cadesh or "the holy," and in the Levant at this day, it is more commonly called El Cods "the holy," than Jerusalem. Cadytis is obviously the Greek form of this epithet, which Herodotus very naturally took for a proper name.

river Euphrates in Carchemish, which Nebuchadnezzɛr king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim tl e son of Josiah king of Judah. Order ye the buckler and shield, and draw near to battle. Harness the horses, ard get up ye horsemen, and stand forth with your helmets ; furbish the spears, and put on the brigandenes.* Wherefore have I seen them dismayed and turned away back ? and their mighty ones are beaten down and fled apace and look not back, for fear was round about, saith the Lord'. Let not the swift flee away, nor the mighty man escape; they shall stumble and fall towards the north, by the river Euphrates.

"Who is this that cometh up as a flood, whose waters are moved as the rivers? Egypt riseth up like a flood, and her waters are moved as the rivers; and he saith, I will go up, and will cover the earth; I will destroy the city and the inhabitants thereof. Come up ye horses, and rage ye chariots; and let the mighty men come forth; the Ethiopians and the Libyans that handle the shield, and the Luddim that handle and bend the bow.* For this is the day of the Lord God of hosts, a day of vengeance,

* The offensive and defensive weapons here ennmerated are found delineated on all the Egyptian monuments which relate to military affairs, and thus confirm the minute accuracy of the prophet. On the other hand the prophet's account indisputably proves that the Egyptians had made scuh proficiency in the art of war as to possess a regular military estoblishment.

† The Luddim (inaccurately rendered Lydians in our version) were a people of Northern Africa, and tributary allies to the Egyptians. They appear to have supplied the archers, next to the chariots the most efficient corps in the Egyptian army. Some of the bows were of such great size that they could not be bent without considerable effort. It may be added that the Egyptian archers drew the bow to the ear, like the old English yeomen, not to the breast, like Greeks and Romans.

that he may avenge him of his adversaries; and the sword shall devour, and it shall be made satiate and drunk with blood; for the Lord God of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates."

The battle of Circesium not only deprived the Egyptians of all their conquests, but laid open their country to the perils of a hostile invasion. The conquerors pursued Necho beyond his frontiers, but there are no sufficient means for determining the extent to which they penetrated. From the days of Necho to the present hour the possession of Syria has been uniformly sought by the several dynasties that have ruled in Egypt, and this object of their ambition has been the most frequent cause of revolutions in their country.

A fleet was necessary to the attainment of Necho's objects, and both he and his successor, Pharaoh Hophra, zealously exerted themselves to render Egypt a maritime power. In the early part of his reign, Hophra* was eminently successful; he sent an expedition against the island of Cyprus, captured the cities of Gaza and Sidon, vanquished the king of Tyre in a naval engagement, and restored to Egypt that influence in Syria of which she had been deprived by the victory of Nebuchadnezzar. The king of Judah was induced by these events to revolt against the Babylonians, and enter into strict alliance with the Egyptians. This course of policy was denounced by the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who declared that to repose confidence in Egypt was "to lean on a broken reed.” Their predictions were accomplished. The Babylonians laid siege to Jerusalem, and Hophra, as he had promised, marched to its relief, but on surveying the hostile forces he

* Called Apries by the Greek historians.

marched home, leaving the Jews to the merciless rage of their enemies. Jerusalem was taken; Zedekiah was brought bound before the conqueror, who reproached the unhappy captive for his treason, ordered his children and friends to be slain before his face, deprived him of sight, and sent him fettered to Babylon.

The overthrow of the Jewish kingdom was generally attributed to the perfidious conduct of Pharaoh Hophra, and hence divine wrath was denounced against him by the prophets. Jeremiah's prediction of the monarch's fate was remarkably fulfilled; the prophet declared-" Thus saith the Lord, Behold I will give Pharaoh Hophra king of Egypt into the hand of his enemies, and into the hand of them that seek his life; as I gave Zedekiah king of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar his enemy, and that sought his life."

Military renown seems essential to the success of a monarch who attempts to make extensive and radical changes in the established institutions. A reverse of fortune is usually fatal to an innovator; the defeated soldiers are ever ready to throw the blame of their disaster on his erroneous policy. No one is so obnoxious to a popular cry as a reformer, and the more absurd the charge against him is, the more perilous it is likely to be in its consequences. Hophra declared war against the Grecian colonists settled in Cyrene; and as it was obviously dangerous to employ the Greek' mercenaries in a campaign against their countrymen, he sent only his Egyptian warriors on the expedition. They were shamefully defeated: mortified by this sudden and unexpected check, they attributed their disgrace to Hophra himself, averring that he had sent them on this expedition to ensure their destruction. They persuaded themselves and others that his views were to weaken the

power of the military class, and thus to remove the great barrier to his ambitious desire of subverting the constitution in church and state.

The standard of revolt was raised: Amasis, who was sent to reason with the insurgents, became their leader, and Hophra was deserted by all save his foreign mercenaries. These made a gallant resistance, but they were finally overwhelmed by numbers; Hophra was taken prisoner, and was soon after strangled in prison.

It is remarkable that this revolution, undertaken to check the progress of innovation, introduced a greater innovation than any that had been yet attempted. Amasis, the successful usurper, was a man of low caste, and consequently the fundamental laws were violated by his elevation to the throne. Indeed there is strong reason for believing that he was supported by the Assyrians, and that he purchased their assistance by becoming a tributary. However that may be, it is very clear that the entire reign of Amasis was a system of compromise; he favoured foreigners and encouraged commerce, while he bribed the priesthood, if not to connivance at least to forbearance, by rich donations and endowments. The overthrow of the Babylonian empire restored the independence of Egypt; and Amasis successfully exerted himself to efface the memory of his former vassalage. He refused to submit to the Persians who had founded a new empire on the ruins of Babylon, and died before he witnessed the fatal consequences.

Cambyses, king of Persia, was invited to invade Egypt by a deserter from the Greek mercenaries: Psammetichus, the last of the Pharaohs, made a brave resistance, but he was at length overthrown, and Egypt became what it has ever since remained, the heritage of foreigners. Exces